With the speculation that someday their will be only 4 mega conferences consisting of the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 12, and the best elements of the ACC and Big 12 I wonder if we should revive the old idea of a Magnolia Conference. I want to say it was the 1950's when there was an attempt to create an athletic conference of all of the south's elite academic institutions, most of whom were private. With the small private schools now being largely marginalized in effort to create conferences built for television with large markets and large alumni bases it is very likely that many of these same private schools will be left on the outside looking in and that they might want to band together and thumb their nose at the system by creating a league based on academic profile. Your membership could look something like this:

DukeWake ForestTulaneRiceBaylorSouthern MethodistTexas ChristianTulsa

If Vanderbilt ever decided to sever ties with the SEC they would be welcome to join as would any southern state school with AAU membership that was left out of the power conferences (Georgia Tech?). Boston College could even be considered if they were left out.

I'd like to see the SEC get inventive with expansion. I'd like to see them kill off both the Big 12 and ACC in one foul swoop by adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Virginia Tech, NC St, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St, and Miami and then divide into 2 conferences the Southeastern Conference and the Southwestern Conference:

This combines a crazy mix of mid, and lower tier schools for a fun, exciting 16 team conference.The South division would cover Texas (5), Arkansas (1), Oklahoma (1), and Louisiana (1).The West division would cover Utah (2), Idaho (1), Colorado (1), California (1), Oregon (1), and Montana (1).I think this conference would be competitive and spunky!Any comments or complaints! Both are welcome, just don't be too harsh! HAHAHA!

So if I've counted right that leaves out:IPFW, IUPUI, Oakland, NMSU (those 4 will probably have new conference homes soon), UTPA (hopefully Southland), Chicago St and UM-KC. The last two probably don't have many options or chances to get into a conference. I really don't want to include them so since it's a dream scenario I won't.

Compared to the status quo not too many advantages, 3 conferences, 3 AQs in basketball. The football side gets enough at large bids to where another AQ doesn't help. But this does give the Dakotas a stable home and it balances out the BBall powers.

So if I've counted right that leaves out:IPFW, IUPUI, Oakland, NMSU (those 4 will probably have new conference homes soon), UTPA (hopefully Southland), Chicago St and UM-KC. The last two probably don't have many options or chances to get into a conference. I really don't want to include them so since it's a dream scenario I won't.

Compared to the status quo not too many advantages, 3 conferences, 3 AQs in basketball. The football side gets enough at large bids to where another AQ doesn't help. But this does give the Dakotas a stable home and it balances out the BBall powers.

Let's just say that it might occur, but putting IPFW, IUPUI and Oakland to the Horizon, along with Chicago St. and UMKC; while NMSU should join the Mountain West or Sun Belt for all sports, or re-join the Big West for all of its non-football sports while being an FBS Independent. UTPA could be a great candidate to join the Southland, or possibly re-joining the Sun Belt to pair up with UT-Arlington as its non-football members.

*I understand U of Florida blocks all other schools from their state, but I feel in order for this to work, Florida must allow at least 1 in and Miami FL brings a strong history and is on the opposite side of the state from U of Florida*Putting Vandy in the Southwest Division was the only option I saw unless you split up the Mississippi schools which I felt would not happen

*I struggled with creating "Regional Unnamed Conferences," because not all the teams are sub-par*I didn't know if these conferences should be 1 "mega-conference" or 2 "regional conferences" or 1 stronger/1 weaker conference, but I went with regional

SchedulingConferences with 3 divisions of 6:Play every team in your division, plus 2 teams from each of the other 2 divisions in your conference (9 games)Split rivalries (ex. Michigan and Ohio St) may either choose to add a 10th conference game and play each other or the league may protect that rivalry as 1 of the 2 cross-division games (ex. Michigan plays Ohio St every year plus 1 other team from Ohio St's division)Conferences with 2 divisions of 8:Play every team in your division, plus 2 teams from the other division in your conference (9 games)Conferences with 10 teams:Play every team in your conference (9 games)Conferences with 11 teams:Play 9 of the other 10 teams in your conference (9 games)

All teams play 3 nonconference games (FBS only) unless protected rivalry game is counted as "nonconference" (see Michigan/Ohio St example)

Conference Championships (only for conferences with divisions)Conferences with 2 divisions of 8:Winner from each divisionConferences with 3 divisions of 6:Winner of the division with best total record against non-division conference opponents + next best division winner^reasoning: rewards the toughest division within a conference

Thoughts, criticisms, changes are all welcome! I had a lot of fun making this and I love this website

Just wanted to throw out my idea for 18 scheduling. Every school will be be given a rival school. For football, you will play 8 schools one year and the other 8 the next year. Both years you play your rival (9 conference games). Highest two in the BCS standings play in the conference championship game (seems to be the best thing for the conference if you're trying to reach the 4 school playoff or, if you're a non Big 5 conference, good to try to make a BCS game). So in 4 seasons you will play at and host every school except your rival which you played at and hosted twice. In basketball, you play all 17 schools one time except your rival who you play home and away.

Conferences with 11 teams:Play 9 of the other 10 teams in your conference (9 games)

There is a problem with this. In conference scheduling you must have an even number of results. A winner and a loser for each game. Having 11 teams play 9 games each causes 99 results. Someone will have to play a conference rival, count it as conference for them and non-conference for their opponent in order for this to work.

Conferences with 11 teams:Play 9 of the other 10 teams in your conference (9 games)

There is a problem with this. In conference scheduling you must have an even number of results. A winner and a loser for each game. Having 11 teams play 9 games each causes 99 results. Someone will have to play a conference rival, count it as conference for them and non-conference for their opponent in order for this to work.

I didn't think about that. How did the BIG TEN do it when they only had 11?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum